Cutting cards from an uncut sheet????

[campyfan39]

In many of your opinions, anything done to a card is "altered." So, a gum stain or wax stain from the factory is altering the original, unstained card. It's poor logic. I'm with snowman on this.

Also, who knows how many sheets have been cut and are already in the market? Did the factory intend for the sheets to be uncut? Of course not. I don't have enough money to own an uncut sheet nor the desire. But I see no issue with making them into cards, which was the original intent of the manufacturer. It's called "baseball cards," not baseball sheets.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

In many of your opinions, anything done to a card is "altered." So, a gum stain or wax stain from the factory is altering the original, unstained card. It's poor logic. I'm with snowman on this.

Also, who knows how many sheets have been cut and are already in the market? Did the factory intend for the sheets to be uncut? Of course not. I don't have enough money to own an uncut sheet nor the desire. But I see no issue with making them into cards, which was the original intent of the manufacturer. It's called "baseball cards," not baseball sheets.

It makes sense that you would side with snowman if you can't see the difference between damage caused by a piece of gum put in the package at the factory, and intentional alterations done by the consumer after the fact.

[campyfan39]

It makes sense because, by the definition of the word, they are both different from the original maker's intent. Thus, altered.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

It makes sense that you would side with snowman if you can't see the difference between damage caused by a piece of gum put in the package at the factory, and intentional alterations done by the consumer after the fact.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

It makes sense because, by the definition of the word, they are both different from the original maker's intent. Thus, altered.

Seriously? The manufacturer is the one who put the gum in the pack with the cards. How can you possibly say it wasn't their intent? They intended to put the gum in the pack. The gum they put in did damage.

Regardless. This is not a discussion about alteration. It's about what alteration is acceptable, and should be disclosed. Even if you want to play that semantics game that a gum stain caused by the manufacturer is an alteration (which it isn't), a gum stain should absolutely be disclosed. Any damage caused to the card would by your dogmatic view of alterations constitute an alteration. All damage should be disclosed. And hiding it from a buyer is fraudulent. Again. I'll say it slowly. There is nothing wrong with altering a baseball card. There is something wrong with altering a card and selling it as unaltered.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

The manufacturer is the one who put the gum in the pack with the cards.... They intended to put the gum in the pack. The gum they put in did damage.

Keep in mind that manufacturers packaged cards with gum to spur their gum sales. The cards were therefore the add-in. So it would be more sensible to inquire whether the cards damaged the texture or flavour of the gum.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I see your brain is incapable of distinguishing between cleaning a card to sell it to an unsuspecting buyer, and cleaning it to keep in your collection because you want it to look nicer. Without your ability to understand that difference, we can't possibly have an actual discussion about fraud in the hobby. An alteration can be fraud in one instance, but not in another. The alteration is not the fraud. The selling an altered card without disclosing the alteration is the fraud. And don't give me the "cleaning isn't altering" bullcrap. It's altering by definition. Your actual contention when you say that is that you believe cleaing is an acceptable form of alteration. Not that it isn't alteration. But even you have to recognize it's only acceptable to some people (even if as you claim it's a majority of people). So the sale without disclosing the alteration is fraud. Plain and simple.

You still don't get it (I'm shocked). At the end of the day, it is an accepted practice to soak vintage cards in water. It always has been. So it doesn't matter one bit why someone soaked a card. Whether they did it to enjoy the card more or to resell it for a profit is irrelevant. Knowing that the card was soaked in water does not affect its market value in any way. So there is no obligation to inform.

And please stop using your tired false equivalencies of replacing car parts on a vehicle that has been totaled. We're not talking about rebuilding corners or filling in holes or rebacking cards or any other situation where someone is replacing parts of a card. We're talking about soaking cards in water. The car analogy equivalent here is quite clearly someone washing their car. And nobody discloses having washed their cars when selling because it is not material to the value of the car itself. The fact that a dirty dingy old car that hasn't been cleaned in decades might sell for less than it would if someone were to clean it up a bit and present it in its best light does not make it fraud for someone to do so when selling without disclosure. Regardless of whether or not there exists a small army of psychopathic car collectors who greatly prefer cars that have never been cleaned but who cannot distinguish between one that has and one that has not. The market has no obligation to cater to these nutjobs. They are simply old men screaming at clouds.

If what you did to a card has no effect on its market value if disclosed, then it is not a material fact and you have no obligation to disclose it when selling.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You still don't get it (I'm shocked). At the end of the day, it is an accepted practice to soak vintage cards in water. It always has been. So it doesn't matter one bit why someone soaked a card. Whether they did it to enjoy the card more or to resell it for a profit is irrelevant. Knowing that the card was soaked in water does not affect its market value in any way. So there is no obligation to inform.

And please stop using your tired false equivalencies of replacing car parts on a vehicle that has been totaled. We're not talking about rebuilding corners or filling in holes or rebacking cards or any other situation where someone is replacing parts of a card. We're talking about soaking cards in water. The car analogy equivalent here is quite clearly someone washing their car. And nobody discloses having washed their cars when selling because it is not material to the value of the car itself. The fact that a dirty dingy old car that hasn't been cleaned in decades might sell for less than it would if someone were to clean it up a bit and present it in its best light does not make it fraud for someone to do so when selling without disclosure. Regardless of whether or not there exists a small army of psychopathic car collectors who greatly prefer cars that have never been cleaned but who cannot distinguish between one that has and one that has not. The market has no obligation to cater to these nutjobs. They are simply old men screaming at clouds.

If what you did to a card has no effect on its market value if disclosed, then it is not a material fact and you have no obligation to disclose it when selling.

LOL, No it is only accepted by those that do it. If anyone has never soaked a card it greatly enhances the card in many ways. The number 1 thing is you can now sell it for way more. I have also noticed the majority of those that have no problem soaking cards DO NOT want to buy cards that have been soaked. If you list a card as being soaked it will sell for less than if you didn't disclose the soaking.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by bnorth

LOL, No it is only accepted by those that do it. If anyone has never soaked a card it greatly enhances the card in many ways. The number 1 thing is you can now sell it for way more. I have also noticed the majority of those that have no problem soaking cards DO NOT want to buy cards that have been soaked. If you list a card as being soaked it will sell for less than if you didn't disclose the soaking.

Soaking a card in water would almost never result in being able to sell it for "way more" afterward. The vast majority of the time, the card would regrade the same with or without soaking. In some cases, it might get a slightly better grade, like going from a 3 to a 4 or something, but that wouldn't even be enough of a difference to cover the regrading costs and auction fees. I suppose there could be some extremely rare circumstances where soaking a card results in 2 grade bumps or more, but that would be pretty rare like with an EXMT card that was badly warped from a humid environment or something. But it's not like trimming where you can turn a 5 into a 10 or anything extreme like that. In general, you're talking about very minor improvements in a card's overall appearance by soaking it in water.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Snowman

At the end of the day, it is an accepted practice to soak vintage cards in water. It always has been.

You don't get it (shocked). This is a completely and utterly false statement. Just because you say it, or you want it to be true, doesn't make it so. You will say anything so that you can justify your fraud in your mind.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

I remember back in 1966 and going into the old Woolworths 5&10 and they had uncut sheets of 1966 Topps baseball cards and you picked out who you wanted and the old gal working there would cut them out for you. She wasn't very good at cutting a straight line. I still have the Mantle and the memories of the day I got it.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

You don't get it (shocked). This is a completely and utterly false statement. Just because you say it, or you want it to be true, doesn't make it so. You will say anything so that you can justify your fraud in your mind.

I tell you what. Let's find out. I'll soak a card in water and sell it to you without disclosure. Then you can sue me and I'll show up in court. I'll even represent myself. If you win the case, I'll give you $100k. If I win the case, you pay me $50k. Do we have a deal?